Party Politics, Reminiscences and Musings, Uncategorized

Encounter with Two Labour Ladies

9 Comments

I thought to blog about an encounter, on Twitter, with two ladies of seemingly similar views, both basically pro-Corbyn Labour Party supporters.

I happened to see that a Jew-Zionist lawyer and prolific tweeter was arguing with and, as the ladies tweeted (not inaccurately), “bullying” them because they opposed Israel. I myself block the Jew in question but started to talk to both ladies.

I could see that they had become aware of abusive tweets by one or two Jewish Zionist persons, notably minor academic Ben Gidley, who works at Birkbeck and Goldsmiths colleges of London University when not tweeting malicious pro-Zionism and supposed “antifascism” and who, while having his more “respectable” academic-oriented account, @bengidley, also runs @bobfrombrockley and did run the Zionist troll account @inthesoupagain (which was permanently suspended by Twitter for its abusive character). @inthesoupagain has in fact been resurrected as @antinazisunited, in which the same garbage pumped out by “Soup” is poorly-camouflaged behind tweets about US politics and other subjects. Other Zionist accounts are now connected with these, among them @gnasherjew (which “monitors” and denounces anti-Zionist Labour members).

At that stage, it seemed clear that both ladies were unaware of my own socio-political views (even in the cartoon form in which they are usually characterized by the Zionist element).

So it was that our Twitter conversation developed. Both ladies seemed well-meaning, wanting a better Britain in a better world etc. Not unlike some of my own views in many ways. They were becoming aware of the Zionist cabal on Twitter and of its methods (trolling those opposed to Zionist control).  They opposed Israel, possibly as much or more than I do myself. However, the amiable atmosphere was clouded when the discussion turned to Jews as distinct from Zionists.

Now the Zionists usually claim that up to 97% of Jews in the UK support Israel. The devil here is in the detail. What does “support” mean in this context? General sympathy? Allegiance right or wrong? Donating money? Serving in the Israeli army? More?

In the instant case, the Jew (and Zionist) lawyer wanted effectively all Jews to be regarded as Zionists. An attack on Zionists and their behaviour was therefore “anti-Semitic”. The two Labour ladies demurred.

As for myself, though I accept that there are some Jews who are ambivalent toward or even hostile toward Israel and/or Zionist activity in the UK or elsewhere, for me this is a sterile argument. I oppose Israel while recognizing that it is no worse as a society than most if not all of the states and peoples around it. I oppose Israel because it is the centre, or a major hub at least, of a world-wide web or network. My interests lie mainly in the UK, Europe generally and in the Russophone world.

My conversation with these two ladies started to take on the character of a debate akin to the debate which once existed between the mediaeval Scholastic school of philosophers (mostly priests and monks of the Roman Catholic Church and whose views devolved largely from Aristotle) and their Platonic-oriented peers. In other words, the Group as against the Individual. Which is the more important or determinative? The two ladies would only recognize individuals, individuals who may, for instance, be Jews, but who were not to be in any way labelled or analyzed by reference to their membership of the (race, culture, religion) group of Jews generally.

My own view is that I recognize the group first, but accept that an individual may not be a typical member of that group. So a Jew can have views and behaviours which deviate from the group of Jews (or Zionist Jews) generally. In other words, I think that I give weight to both the group identity and the individual identity.

While the two Labour ladies could not agree with me completely on the above points (and, while not wishing to characterize either of them as “thick”, they did seem to struggle with the discussion and indeed with logic at times), the conversation was still on a calm level until they realized (from reading about my politically-motivated disbarment, to which I myself had directed them) that my political views are social-national, not System or near-System “Labourist”.

In other words, the two ladies’ early and continuing brainwashing (by “holocaust” propaganda, other System programming at school, on TV, in the msm generally) kicked in. They became outraged (or, more accurately, were becoming or about to become outraged) that my views were slightly or rather out of their normal ballpark.

At that point, not wishing to engage in a fruitless discussion of the Third Reich or National Socialism with people whose views on the subject(s) came from The World At War (at best) or other (even more biased) Jewish/Zionist outpourings, I decided to politely mute these ladies before they became angry or hysterical.

All the same, I found the experience interesting. Their brainwashing or indoctrination may have prevented them from straying too far from what had been pumped into them at an early age (and I doubt that a latter-day “supporter” of Stalin would have outraged them…), but they at least were able to see that there is, on Twitter and elsewhere, a Jewish-Zionist cabal which is, inter alia, determined to trash anti-Zionist Corbyn. They and a million like them are not really ideologically awake, but it’s a start.

[the graphic is rather American, but still pretty good]

CponI2UUEAArtdyUpdate or Postscriptum

One of the “Labour Ladies” blocked me as soon as she understood (or, more accurately, misunderstood) my socio-political views. The other did not but left it for a day or so before tweeting the usual uneducated nonsense about how “Nazis” were (she apparently believes) “dying out”, that I should “rethink” my views and “love everybody”. I do not think that I need do more now than to close her curtains and tiptoe away…(actually, I politely replied and included a few suitable photographs with quotations to make my point; I was then blocked). Both ladies remain merely muted by me.

As for the dispute between the ladies and the Zionist, it seems that that rumbles on and may continue so to do.

Update, 11 April 2019

 

Reminiscences and Musings, society, Uncategorized

The Academic Dead-End

12 Comments

No doubt there will be many who might say that I am unqualified to write about academia. My post-graduate qualifications, after all, are or were of a basically vocational nature (the Bar of England and Wales; the Bar of the State of New York). Further, I have never taught any subject at any level. However, it really is time that “time is called” on the dummy intellectuality being passed off as scholarship in the tertiary educational sector.

I do not intend to give specific examples, glaring though many are, of what I have called “dummy intellectuality” in academia. Anyone interested can find it easily for himself, by looking at the list of publications by university faculty members, or at their social media outpourings. I am of course confining my comment mainly to what are often termed the softer areas of study, such as sociology, literature and linguistics, “migration” (yes, this too is now an academic “discipline”!) and the like.

In the past, in the 19th century and most of the 20th, non-scientific academic works could usually be understood perfectly well by the ordinary educated person. That is no longer the case. A whole farrago of nonsense has been imported into academic life, involving narrow jargon, ever-narrower fields of study, cliques of “experts” in the foregoing and careers built on these insubstantial foundations.

I suppose that the pseudo-intellectual egg from which the above-noted chick was hatched was probably the area of the study of Marx, Lenin and Engels, firstly in the Soviet Union, then in the socialist world more generally, which then seeped out into the universities and other tertiary institutions of the Western world. Marxism was itself once called a result of “Jewish Talmudic theorizing and argument” and in the dummy intellectuality now rife in the universities of the UK and elsewhere, there is certainly a powerful Jewish element.

Read any papers by academics in fields such as sociology, “gender studies”, “migration studies” etc and you will see that the language employed is so specialized that it amounts to an exclusionary jargon.

One of the effects of the narrowing of language into jargon is that only those indoctrinated into the jargon can discuss the subjects concerned; others are not to be included in the discussion because they are not “educated” (in the narrow sense) enough to do so. Only the “specialists” (the Jewish or sometimes non-Jewish “experts”) can say anything, it is thought. This way of thinking has also contaminated areas such as economics, which are thought of as “harder” or more scientific than, say, sociology.

Thus it is that, before the financial crash usually dated as 2007-2008, the “experts” were mostly sure that such a crash would not happen. Afterwards, the “experts” split into at least two camps (pro”austerity” being the main one in the UK). These “experts” made predictions, got jobs paying hundreds of thousands of pounds in the Bank of England, the City of London financial district, in the BBC and elsewhere. The fact that most of them got their predictions wrong most of the time  (and still do) means little, because they cannot be challenged by non-experts on their own terms. The average critic does not even have a common language with the average “expert”. The fact that some kind of Mystic Meg or the spin of a coin is as accurate as the “experts” is thought irrelevant.

Likewise, it is hard to challenge the idea, put forward (in nuanced form, so be it) by a few well-known academics and then trumpeted (in simplistic forms) by a horde of “me-too” politically-correct imbeciles and one-world plotters, that the Romans were non-European or even sometimes “blacks”. Who are you, ordinary educated citizen, to challenge “the experts”? Yes, all Roman art, currency, literature, shows a European (Aryan) heritage, but what of that? That has no weight, because Professor Somebody of SuchAndSuch University has suggested that a few non-Europeans served (perhaps) as legionaries for short periods in Britain. From that tentative suggestion by an academic, not only do the “me-too” politically-correct hordes draw sweeping and wrong conclusions as to Roman Britain, but (even more wrongly) go further, to say that modern British people have African or other non-European ancestry. This despite the scientific evidence that does exist:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Returning to our main theme, it is clear that academia must be reclaimed from the “experts” in that narrow sense, from those who are only talking to each other and (((of course))) making a good living doing so.

Whole subjects may have to be either done away with or subjected to a purge. True academics must be able to exist again (they still do, in fact, alongside the jargonists) and thus be able to inform the non-academic population properly as to both their own subjects and public policy. Clarity is king.

historical, society, Uncategorized

When Public Order Collapses

4 Comments

I suppose that few British people have ever seen the collapse of public order. The United Kingdom has at least been fortunate in that regard. The tumultuous events of the past century have left largely intact the Victorian legacy of “law and order” bequeathed by the 19th Century.

Britain has endured two world wars (1914-1918 and 1939-1945), other and smaller wars overseas, a General Strike (1926), other periods of industrial strife (1930s, 1970s), acts of terrorism, periods of political violence (1930s, 1970s) and even a limited and slow-burn civil war in pockets (Northern Ireland, particularly 1970s to late 1990s), yet overall order (and the rule of law) has persisted. Even in Northern Ireland that has been so, though a barrister friend of mine visited a “Diplock court”–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_courts— in the 1980s and told me of how surrealistic it was to see a criminal trial with all the panoply of the English law (bewigged and gowned barristers, a “red judge” in his wig and robes etc) but without a jury and, instead of court security or police officers, several soldiers carrying submachineguns and on guard.

This is of course in stark contrast to the experience of other Europeans. Russia of course is, as always, sui generis, with its 20thC revolutions (1917), civil war (1918-1922), political purges (1917-1948), invasion and vast wartime destruction (1941-1945), as well as the collapse of the Soviet system in the 1980s and early 1990s and the waves of gangsterism and Jewish-Zionist oligarchy that followed from 1991 onward until a degree of stability was attained under the Putin regime.

The older generation of mainland Europeans were almost all affected, at least at second-hand, by disorders: the Second World War swept across the continent leaving few countries untouched (and even some of those–Finland, Spain, Eire– had seen their own wars, civil wars etc). In fact, the only European countries of any size unaffected directly (though certainly indirectly) by the Second World War or civil upheavals were Sweden and Switzerland. Even Portugal, neutral during 1939-1945, later had a military coup and revolution (in the 1970s).

France, for example, was in the 20th Century invaded twice, had several all-France republics established, as well as the Vichy Government of 1940-1944; it also had considerable political and industrial conflict, huge destruction from air, land and sea (in 1940, from German attack, but more seriously from the Anglo-American invasion, bombing, shelling etc of 1941-1944). France also had the underground war of the OAS in the early 1960s, which very nearly brought down de Gaulle and the Fifth Republic.

Again, Poland has seen, from 1914 through to the 1980s, invasions, purges, wars, civil disorder, very great changes in the Western and Eastern borders of the country itself, near-starvation at times, economic collapse several times, destruction of much of its infrastructure, ruination of its currency.

The effects upon civic life and rule of law of all these events has been greater on mainland Europe than has been the case in the UK. On mainland Europe, the ways of life of the various countries has had to be re-established, sometimes several times over, usually with very significant changes. In the UK, the way of life has evolved quite slowly and –even as a result of WW2– without dramatic alteration overnight.

Why then, do I see civil disorder as a serious possibility in the UK?

First of all, Britain has taken in a vast horde of mainly non-European immigrants, most of whom have no racial, cultural or religious connection with anything that British history has produced. Even those non-Europeans born in the UK do not feel the same connection with the country that is felt by the real British (including those with other white Northern European ancestry and who were born here).

Secondly, the reaction of the Caribbeans and other non-Europeans to serious difficulty is to engage in street protest which can become riotous, as has happened several times even in the past decade.

Thirdly, the indigenous British have lost at least some of the resilience which sustained public order in previous times. By way of personal anecdote, I recall the “petrol crisis” of 2000, when I had not long returned from overseas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_protests_in_the_United_Kingdom. Having little choice but to travel across country, I saw at one motorway filling station scenes not far from the chaotic. This left a deep impression on me. Speaking personally, I have little faith in the ability of the System to maintain order, should a more serious or prolonged crisis hit the nation, if “nation” it still is.

I do not see the British now as a unified people, because of both cultural and directly racial/religious factors. A large and growing minority are really not British at all and have only tenuous connection with and loyalty to the State.

A fourth aspect is that the arms of the State are not now well-staffed. Police, Army etc. Could they handle large-scale disruption? I wonder.

It may be that the UK will have to undergo some of the vicissitudes endured in the past century by many of the mainland European peoples before a new system is established.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

The Purpose of Government

6 Comments

In Britain, we see the two main System parties vie for public support. The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was regarded, until a week or two prior to the 2017 General Election as a joke. Deadheads such as Diane Abbott and Angela Rayner were openly laughed at by millions. Many more disparaged the “anti-patriotic” political histories of Corbyn and his closest allies. The Conservative Party under Theresa May was generally regarded as a safer pair of hands, more patriotic, more electable. What changed in those final weeks and days before polling?

The Conservative Party election bubble burst when Theresa May made a policy announcement about social care for the elderly. I believe that that suddenly floodlit, for millions, what the contemporary Conservative Party is all about. Since 2010, the Conservatives (firstly as the “Con Coalition” during 2010-2015), demonized and attacked –in some cases killed– unemployed, disabled, sick, generally poor and/or marginalized people. Now, however (as I had in fact been predicting since 2010), they were going after the pensioners, but that alone  (meaning also a backlash from pensioners or those nearing pensionable age) is not the whole story.

There was once a theory of government which said that the purpose of government was, in the language of today, defence of the realm, primarily: what we now call “defence” and, by extension, “national security”. External and internal defence. That was then. Today, in advanced countries, government is expected to do a great deal more than that. It is expected to care for the people in practical ways, either providing education, policing, health services, career opportunities, social assistance etc, or laying down the conditions in which those services etc can be provided by the private enterprise sector or the “charitable” or “non-profit” third sector.

This is the reason why Labour was able, despite all its flaws, to catch up with the Conservative Party: because Labour was at least offering (promising) help to the people, in circumstances where the only other party choice, the Conservative Party, was not.

The electorate, even in Britain’s notoriously unfair First Past The Post electoral system, is now in the driving seat. The people want things and services and they will not vote for any party which does not at least promise that the people will get what they want.

Labour is presently benefiting from this wish of the people that government provides help. Tomorrow, next year, in 2020 or, especially 2022, the wish may become a demand and the party benefiting may be one which, in 2017, does not as yet exist.

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, Mark Lewis, Nick Griffin, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Tommy Robinson, Uncategorized

When I was a victim of a malicious Zionist complaint…

357 Comments

Six months and a day ago, I attended Grays Police Station, Essex, for an interview with the police. I trudged through the snow and slush of estuarial Essex after a long rail journey involving several changes of train. A police fortress set in a snowbound urbanized wasteland. Crossing the rail line in the snow reminded me of visits to socialist Poland in the 1980s. Not pleasant.

grayspolice

[above, Grays Police Station, Grays, Essex]

A week or so before my supposedly voluntary but in fact involuntary trip to Essex, I had been surprised to receive a telephone call from a detective-sergeant of the Essex Police, who informed me that the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [CAA] had made formal complaint against me.

Now the CAA, as some readers will know, is a small but well-funded Jewish Zionist organization, sufficiently in funds to be able to employ a number of full-time staff. It was founded around the time of Israel’s 2014 Gaza slaughter, in order to defend the interests of Israel and of Jews generally. Some of its members also belong to “UK Lawyers for Israel”, a similar group and the one which complained against me to the Bar Standards Board in 2014, as a result of which I was disbarred in late 2016 (though I had not practised for 9 years!). The signatory on that complaint had been one Jonathan Goldberg QC, a Jew who was once the preferred Counsel of the notorious Kray gangsters. Goldberg also appeared pro bono (without fee) for the CAA in its private prosecution against the satirical musician, Alison Chabloz (which prosecution was later taken over by the Crown Prosecution Service [CPS] and the original charges dropped, though new ones were substituted and the matter adjourned until, at the earliest, late December 2017).

The head of the CAA, one Gideon Falter, had, prior to founding the CAA, made a complaint against a Foreign Office man, Rowan Laxton, who was accused of having shouted out (while on a gym treadmill, watching a TV report of yet another Israeli atrocity), “Fucking Jews! Fucking Jews!” (yes, that is enough to get you arrested in contemporary London…). Laxton’s case ended not with his first-instance conviction before a (dozy? biased?) magistrate, but with his acquittal on an appeal by way of rehearing in the Crown Court.

The “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” (sinister title…) at the CAA is one Stephen Silverman, who lives in Essex and who was exposed in open court (possibly inadvertent admission by the CAA’s own advocate) in December 2016 as having been the Internet troll @bedlamjones on Twitter and a user (abuser?) called “Robbersdog” on another discussion site, Disqus. This person abused anyone thought to be anti-Zionist, particularly women. His posts were notorious for their gloating sadism. He particularly enjoyed looking forward to people being arrested, questioned, charged, tried, imprisoned for “anti-Semitic” comments. He was in fact part of a whole group of Jew-Zionists on Twitter and elsewhere, all following the same line of attack (Twitter has now removed several for similar abuse). Despite that, Silverman remains in post at the CAA, an organization apparently supported now by a number of politicians, all under the thumb of the Israel lobby.

Back now to my visit to the area some call “the arsehole of England” (it must be true: it is represented in Parliament by freeloading chancer and former receptionist Jackie Doyle-Price!). It had been arranged with the detective in charge that I would appear at Grays Police Station on 12 January at a specified time. I arranged to have a solicitor who, in the event, failed to turn up. Given the “choice” of returning within a few days or a week at most (and the expense and inconvenience therefore being doubled) or interviewing without legal advice (I last practised at the Bar in 2007-2008 and, apart from corporate “crime” on behalf of companies such as South West Water and Balfour Beatty, had not engaged in criminal law since about 1994), I decided that I had no choice but to continue to interview.

The several detectives who dealt with me were polite, even reasonably friendly; certainly professional in their approach. I was never arrested during the whole proceeding and was told that I could leave at any time. I was then cautioned and interviewed for three hours about some 60 pages of tweets, hundreds in all. Slowly, each tweet was put to me. Many were stories from newspapers, cartoons etc. I mostly no-commented, but did make some pertinent points and the odd joke.

What struck me first was the sheer injustice of all of this. The Jews complaining about me had done so at no cost to themselves and yet had wasted the time and money of both me and the police. The police should have told them, at the least, to go whistle, instead of taking the complaint seriously. I was in fact told by the police that they were dealing with another half-dozen CAA complaints of similar nature. So much for “the police are starved of resources”!

The next point that struck me, as we trawled through many tweets alleged (but not proven) to have been tweeted by me, was how brainwashed the police were in respect of the “holocaust” mythus. They referred to one cartoon (“Alice in Holohoax Land”) and asked how anyone could make a joke of people (Jews) made into soap and lampshades! They obviously had no idea at all that those WW2 “black propaganda” stories had not only been totally debunked but also accepted by the Zionists themselves as untrue! They also, needless to say, had no idea that those “holohoax” tales were in fact of WW1 origin, recycled (so to speak) for WW2 use. I did not bother to argue with them. Perhaps they will read this blog post.

Another funny moment was when the detective in charge objected to tweets poking fun at “Saint” Bob Geldof. It turned out that he took Geldof’s charitable image at face value. I thought that detectives were trained to recognize the dodgy. Apparently not.

I was able to read into the record of interview (taped) a letter I had sent prior to interview, detailing the abuse of the criminal justice system being engaged in by the CAA and by Silverman in particular, as exposed during the Chabloz case and otherwise. I asked that this letter be sent to the CPS, were the complaint against me to go further.

Anyway, after a dehydrating 3 hours (I was given one cup of water) in a hot little room, I was taken outside to the custody desk and booked out. I had never been under arrest and was not given police bail, but just released without anything more. The detective murmured something about “postal disposal” to the custody officer (I never was sent any letter of closure, though) and I was released back into the cold streets of Grays, now being blanketed by more snow.

I do not (much) blame the police involved. They were obviously under pressure from higher ranking police (probably either Zionists or, more likely, freemasons). Political pressure from higher-up, too, in a situation where the governing party under Theresa May and Amber Rudd is really just “ZOG” [Zionist Occupation Government].

Needless to add, I was never prosecuted.

So that is my account of an experience provided for me by the abusive CAA organization. It is time for the CPS to rein back the apparent latitude given to Jewish-Zionist organizations making malicious and politically-motivated complaints against private citizens (I do not belong to any political party or group).

As to my final word, I should say only that “what goes around comes around”…

Update, 10 February 2019

Since the above was written, the CAA has been (I think is still being) investigated by the police and the Charity Commission. It has suffered significant legal defeats, and Stephen Silverman, the sinister troll-stalker of women, is himself now under further police investigation.[see below]

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1094320750771781632

and

https://twitter.com/LabLeftVoice/status/1094321298115887105

Update, 25 October 2019

“They” are still mentioning me online, really getting “full value”…

https://antisemitism.uk/new-guidance-from-bar-standards-board-tells-barristers-to-avoid-heated-social-media-spats/

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

scan25

Update, 14 January 2023

The Jew in question still pursues me, at least in his tiny mind:

Diary Blog, 15 January 2022, including an outline of the failure of the latest Jew-Zionist attempt to prosecute me

Update, 31 October 2024

More recent developments: well, I was eventually put on trial after the “CAA” pressured the Crown (or Clown) Prosecution Service to cobble together a misconceived prosecution-persecution of me.

What happened then is detailed in the blog posts below:

Diary Blog, 16 March 2024, including an account of my recent free speech trial and sentencing
Diary Blog, 17 March 2024, including the aftermath of my sentencing hearing

The upshot of all that was that I was made subject to a 9-month “community order” and required to pay costs etc amounting to £734. The costs were partly (about 1/3) crowdfunded, the rest paid off in monthly instalments (all now paid).

As for the “community order”, with 15 “rehabilitation days”, the “days” turned out to be short or shortish meetings lasting between 20 minutes and a couple of hours and, after half a dozen of them (one every few weeks, I was told that, by reason of other and larger events (unrelated to my own case), the “rehabilitation days” requirement was, in my case, deemed to have been fulfilled.

All finished.

The little screeching “CAA” Jew-Zionist pack were so shocked that I was not either imprisoned or given a suspended custodial sentence (and the blog closed down) that it took them a couple of weeks (during which they were not inactive behind the scenes) to comment on my —as they wrongly termed it on their website— “absurdly lenient” sentence (which exactly followed the written recommendation of the Probation Service).

They must be fuming even more, now that the sentence turns out to have been even less harsh than when passed. They (no doubt) continue to plot and scheme.

Meanwhile, the blog continues to be published on a daily or near-daily basis.

Alison Chabloz, Alt-Right, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, David Icke, free speech, historical revisionism, Ian Millard, Jewish lobby in UK, Jez Turner, London Forum, Reminiscences and Musings, society, Stray memories of life at the English Bar, Uncategorized

The Slide of the English Bar and UK Society Continues and Accelerates

407 Comments

[Addendum and Update, 5 September 2021: since I blogged in relation to my disbarment etc, there have been developments, some of which are covered in the updates at the foot of the original blog. However, two other important changes have been that, firstly, the Bar Standards Board wrote to me a couple of years ago, explaining that I should never have been “tried” by a 5-person Tribunal (the only type that has the power to disbar), but only by a 3-person Tribunal (which can only impose lesser penalties). The BSB offered me the chance to have my case reheard. In that event, whatever happened, I should be reinstated as a barrister.

I decided at the time not to reopen the matter. My decision was partly a gesture of contempt towards the System and the Jew-Zionist lobby that procured the “prosecution”, “trial”, and eventual disbarment. Also, as someone over 60, I had no practical use for my “Barrister” status.

The second development, arising out of one of the more recent parts of the Henry Hendron case, is that, as an “unregistered” barrister (since 2008), I should never have been “prosecuted” at all, because the relevant parts of the Bar Code of Conduct would not have applied to me on the facts. I did, I believe, make that point in early correspondence with the BSB in the 2014-2016 period.

In other words, my 2016 disbarment was not only wrongful, but actually unlawful].

[Original blog article from 9 July 2017]

When I started to blog, I intended to write about things of general or objective importance. I intended to avoid the personal and subjective. Above all, I wished to avoid mixing the objective and the subjective. However, I think that some of my personal reminiscences and thoughts might be of interest to others. I also consider that objective conclusions can be drawn about UK society from some of my experiences.

Many of those who are reading this will be aware that I was disbarred in late 2016. That happened after a group of Jew-Zionists calling themselves “UK Lawyers for Israel” (some of whom, probably many, also belong to the so-called “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism”) made official complaint (in 2014) about a number (at first, several dozen) of tweets which I had posted on Twitter. Eventually, the number of tweets comprising the subject-matter of the charge was reduced to seven. Seven (7) tweets (reduced to 5 at Tribunal) out of, at the time, at least 150,000.

Now, though I may blog in detail about the manifold injustices around my own case at a later date, my purpose today is to compare the overall “justice” I received with that meted out to another Bar defaulter recently, in order to illustrate wider points.

Now the bare bones of my own situation were that:

  • I ceased Bar practice in 2008 and last appeared in court in December 2007;
  • I did not hold a Practice Certificate after 2008;
  • I joined Twitter in 2010 and started to tweet in 2011 or 2012;
  • My Twitter profile and picture never made any reference to my being or having been a barrister (whether practising, non-practising or employed);
  • Only a tiny handful of the 155,000-200,000 tweets I had posted made any mention of the fact that I had, years before, been a practising barrister; none of the supposedly “offensive” tweets did so;
  • The tweets I posted (whether complained of or not) were all posted as part of my “personal or private life”, I having had no professional life after 2008 anyway.

It should be said (without getting too technical) that the Bar Code of Conduct was once a slim volume but has expanded into a fairly lengthy and complex code. Suffice to say that the now-usual “race and religion”, “diversity” etc stuff is now included (and I think that we can be sure what kind of persons drafted those clauses…).

In the past, a barrister’s private life was not justiciable under the Code except in a few carefully-drawn exceptions, the main one being where a barrister had been convicted of a (serious) criminal offence (parking, speeding etc excluded). The new Code, in force for a number of years, kept those boundaries but, crucially, made them advisory only, taking away the cast-iron defence that whatever was complained of had been done in the course of the barrister’s personal or private life.

At the same time, the old and sensible distinction between barristers who are in practice, or who are employed as barristers, as against those not practising, or not employed as barristers, was removed in relation to “Core Duty 5”, i.e. in effect “bringing the Bar into disrepute”.

In short, I was, in effect, “bringing the Bar into disrepute”, or so decided a Bar Tribunal panel of 5 chaired by a retired Circuit judge, when (6+ years AFTER having given up Bar practice) I tweeted the seven *reduced at Tribunal to five) “offensive” tweets (on my Twitter account that made no mention in its profile etc that I had ever been a barrister).

I should say that the presiding judge made the point in his summation and sentencing that I had had an unblemished record at the Bar throughout the years since I was Called in 1991.

Other barristers had and have Twitter accounts. Some post obscene comments, such as the “lady” QC whose every sentence contained a swear word. Many have pictures of themselves in wig and gown, or advertise their practices via website links etc (which is now OK but would have been a serious Bar offence only 20 years or so ago). None of those who have used obscene language etc (including telling people to “fuck off” etc) has ever been hauled before a Bar Tribunal, despite their proclaiming their professional status, despite having photos of themselves in Bar clothing in some cases, despite their being in practice at the Bar and talking about it and the law constantly. The presiding judge at my 5-person Tribunal called my case “unprecedented”.

There are so many examples today of barristers doing things which would have meant disbarment decades ago but which are now laughed at and even applauded. We see, for example, the Jewish barrister known to the public as “Judge Rinder” (not in fact any kind of judge) on TV, the show aping that of (also Jewish) “Judge Judy” in the USA. The barrister who plays the role of “Judge Rinder” is acting entirely within the ambit of what is now tolerated by the Bar regulators, but one could not imagine such a show on TV in, say, 1967 or even 1987.

That is even leaving aside the vulgar advertizing and self-promotion undertaken by members of the Bar in practice. That was not permitted until the 1990s. The following example of a Bar defaulter was also one of the most shameless self-promoters.

Now let us look at how the Bar treated so-called “celebrity barrister” Henry Hendron, who, despite being a horrible little bastard –from what I have heard on radio and read in newspapers (I have never met him, admittedly)–, was treated very leniently by the Bar Tribunal, certainly as contrasted with my case.

Hendron supplied so-called “chemsex” drugs, apparently used in gay orgies, to his 18-y-o foreign boyfriend, who died as a result.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/09/celebrity-barrister-sentenced-after-supplying-drugs-that-killed-teen-boyfriend-5870206/

Hendron was ALSO found guilty, on his own admission, of failing to administer properly his chambers (which he headed as Head of Chambers) and in respect of that was fined £2,000, a trivial sum for someone who made hundreds of thousands of pounds in a year.

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/barrister-henry-hendron-suspended-for-three-years-following-criminal-convictions-for-supplying-illegal-drugs/

So the Bar Standards Board and a Bar Tribunal think that a barrister and indeed head of chambers who was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of supplying illegal drugs for immoral purposes, and that supply having resulted in death (within the Temple itself at that!) AND failing to run his chambers properly should get suspended from practice for three years (in fact only two, because time was ruled to run from 2016!) and get a modest fine, whereas I, “found guilty” of having tweeted five (reduced at hearing from seven charged) supposedly “offensive” tweets about Jews, and not a practising or employed barrister at all, had to be disbarred! You really could not make it up.

This is what the Bar Standards Board official , Sara Jagger, Director of Professional Conduct, said about the Hendron case:

“A conviction for supplying illegal drugs is a serious matter. In this case, it had tragic consequences. Mr Hendron failed to meet one of the core duties of a barrister, which is to uphold public trust and confidence. The suspension imposed by the tribunal reflects this.”

This is what the same woman said about my case:

“The use of such offensive language is incompatible with the standards expected of barristers. The Tribunal rightly found that such behaviour diminishes the trust and confidence the public places in the profession and the decision to disbar Mr Millard reflects this.”

The Board’s press statement (still on its website today) also repeated the lie that my Twitter account “made it clear that” I was a barrister. An out and out lie.

Who, I wonder, would the public think less properly able to reflect the standards expected of a barrister? A snivelling, drug-taking degenerate, convicted of illegal drug supply resulting in death, and who also ran his chambers improperly, OR someone who, as part of his non-professional life and indeed post-professional life, posted seven supposedly “offensive” tweets (taking them as described by the Bar Tribunal)?

You decide.

Postscriptum: The BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme interviewed Henry Hendron in a very sympathetic way recently; the popular Press handled the story with a relatively light touch. Contrast that with the day or three of msm storm around my case last year! We can see the way society is going: downhill, fast.

Update, 26 January 2019

Now he is or has been selling “legal packages”! Perhaps he could set up a stall or barrow in one of the London street markets? Is the Bar Standards Board OK with this? Is the Bar itself OK with this?! I begin to think that the whole bloody system should be chucked into the mire…

https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/05/suspended-chemsex-barrister-sells-4000-legal-advice-for-life-on-facebook/

And what is one to make of this? He now intends to sail around the world! Hello sailor! He even has the cheek to solicit donations from the public! As for his hypocrisy, in pretending to be a “victim” of “unequal justice” when he has been treated so incredibly leniently compared to me (read the blog article, above!), words fail me…(his crowdfunding page from August 2018 raised….just £40. Seems that the public are not so stupid after all). [Update, June 2019: Hendron has now deleted all his blog posts about sailing around the world with a bumboy etc and seems to be intending to use his website to flog more “legal services”]

https://henryhendron.com/

According to the blog below, he set off in August 2018, not knowing how to sail, and had to be rescued by the Coastguard the same day…then set off again a day later…The blog writer wants him to give up his “suicidal” journey. Seems that Hendron has one friend, anyway. [see above update, however]

https://www.russelldawkinsbackontrack.co.uk/my-mates/

In fact, it seems that he survived at least until 4 September 2018 (see his blog, below). What appals me about it is the poor grammar, spelling, use of English generally. That such a person was not only treated better than me by the Bar “regulators”, but was at the Bar at all, makes me fume (almost literally). Incidentally, and as of September last year, he had managed to get as far round the globe as Yarmouth, Isle of Wight, having started off in…the Isle of Wight or the nearby Hampshire coast.

https://henryhendron.com/author/hhendron/

[see update above]

I have to wonder, looking at his obviously disordered mind and his poor use of the English language, whether there really are mugs stupid enough to want to retain him on any basis. He asks for £600 an hour. Apparently, in the past his services were utilized by Nadine Dorries MP! Comedy gold.

Ah, seems that Hendron is no longer sailing around the world, unless his navigation is up the creek (literally)…he’s in Romania! https://twitter.com/henryhendron/status/1079764170…

[again, please refer to update, above]

or was, as of New Year’s Eve. Listening to him, I have to admit that I start to feel sorry for him, so pathetic is he. Compassion is my weakness, often.

A Few Stray Bits of News

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4618544/Celebrity-barrister-fighting-sibling-court.html

a dissatisfied client of Hendron having his or her say… 

https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1007513247224877056

https://twitter.com/VobeShy/status/1046465514736881664

Update, 15 March 2019

Now he is on Question Time! (ironically, I agree with most of what he is saying!)

https://twitter.com/BenJolly9/status/1106535042115870726

Update, 10 May 2019

Just noticed this (see below). Made me laugh that a young (?) lady calling herself @pussycatt1984 tweeted that she wanted to have the babies of “pink jumper man”. She might be disappointed…

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/03/drug-suspension-barrister-goes-viral-after-pro-brexit-rant-on-bbc-question-time/

Update, 21 July 2019

The online legal news site, Legal Cheek, reports on Henry Hendron’s return to Bar practice, presumably operating from home or his boat (if he still has it):

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/06/henry-hendron-returns-to-practice-three-years-after-drug-conviction/#.XQZ78yEYw-k.twitter

Another barrister does not sound very thrilled at the news (or at Hendron being described in a “newspaper” as “QC”!)…

https://twitter.com/darrylcherrett/status/1140896761294270465

Quite. Rather a shame, though, that Cherrett apparently does not know the difference between “practise” (as in “to practise”) and “practice” (as in “his practice is criminal”). Still, I suppose that one could be broadminded or charitable and say that, in the USA, the words are reversed…I should not want to be too much of what some call “a grammar nazi”…Oh, fuck it! Why not?! I am sick and tired of semi-educated or narrowly-educated people at the Bar (especially..) and elsewhere in good positions in this sliding country! The Bar, journalism, msm generally, Westminster.

In fact, reverting to Hendron, I was just reading a few of his recent tweets. He is at least not too bad from the political point of view:

and he seems to be an animal lover, so not all bad in that respect either, having retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1108377430962696193

Update, 30 July 2019

Seems that Hendron has yet again been suspended from Bar practice, though only for 3 months:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/chemsex-barrister-suspended-again-by-tribunal/5071174.article

https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/07/henry-hendron-suspended-again/

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases-and-news/barrister-henry-hendron-ordered-to-be-suspended-from-practice/

So Hendron

  • supplied illegal drugs to his foreign teenage boyfriend;
  • as a result of which the boy died;
  • at a “chemsex” orgy held
  • within the precincts of the Temple in London;
  • as a result of which Hedron and others were convicted and sentenced
  • at the Old Bailey

and

  • also found guilty at Bar Disciplinary Tribunal of failing to run his Chambers (of which he was Head) properly

and now also has been found guilty by a BDT of

  • failing to pay a lay client monies
  • despite having been ordered to by the Legal Ombudsman

but instead of being disbarred, has once again been only suspended. He must really have some good contacts in the Bar establishment! Or does he “know too much”?

Still, he only did what is chronicled above (oh, and sold so-called “legal packages” to the public from a metaphorical barrow), all of which have been in the newspapers. It is not as if Hendron did something really bad, like tweeting a few critical remarks about Jews…

I was looking at a few of Hendron’s tweets from 2016 and 2017. Only semi-literate. Does he claim to have dyslexia or something? No wonder that the Bar has lost most of the prestige it had half a century ago. It is just a multikulti dustbin now.

Update, 2 September 2019

Jew-Zionist hypocrite Simon Myerson Q.C. belongs to both main organizations that have persecuted me, “UK Lawyers for Israel” and “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” [“CAA”]. Now he is playing the Jewish “victim” because others are trying to get him disbarred for his tweets etc…Ha ha! What goes around comes around.

It must be yet another case of “anti-Semitism”!…Another Jew hypocrite. Myerson was one of those who conspired to have me expelled from the Bar, and he has been both snooping on me and trolling me on Twitter for a decade.

Ha ha!

Update, 25 October 2019

“They” are still mentioning me online, really getting “full value”…

https://antisemitism.uk/new-guidance-from-bar-standards-board-tells-barristers-to-avoid-heated-social-media-spats/

Update, 5 January 2021

Henry Hendron wins appeal against second suspension

“Mr Justice Fordham wrote: “[T]he BSB’s position is that a barrister whose practising certificate has been suspended is not a ‘BSB regulated person’”, adding that “I have heard no argument and seen no analysis to the contrary.”

The judge praised the BSB and its barrister, Zoe Gannon, for telling him about the “suspended-barrister problem” even though it cost them the case. Hendron himself “had not identified it or relied on it in his grounds of appeal”.“

“Hendron himself had not identified it…“, Well, it is well known that “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client“. I would not want his barrister to represent me, though! Semi-literate, and unable to identify legal issues, as well as morally suspect in various ways.

I should remind myself and my blog readers that the purpose here is not to attack Hendron but to show up the Bar itself, and to highlight the injustice to which I was subject.

I saw a few tweets from Hendron:

The “Crime Bar“?! As I said, semi-literate…

More?

I don’t care if he does claim “dyslexia”; if so, he should never have become a barrister.

As for this, what is one to make of it?

“Your“? (Should be “you’re” or “you are“, of course). Calls his chambers his “office”, and seems to be in a position to pay someone up to £60,000 p.a.! Not sure that I believe a word that he says, though.

An older tweet, from 2011:

The Petersham Hotel? All human life must have been there! I certainly have been, though in the 1980s. “SS Headquarters Normandie”, as my friends and I used to call it! https://www.petershamhotel.co.uk/. Used to be a good place for a quiet drink.

Update, 3 February 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9220171/Barrister-40-tells-misconduct-hearing-charges-against-rubbish.html

Looks like Hendron has finally run out of road. Not that I was ever personally hostile to him; I have never met him, and indeed only heard of him after the scandal involving his “drugs and sex” activities came to light in the Press a few years ago. My aim in the blog was to compare his very lenient treatment by the Bar with the totalitarian repression that bore down on me because I said (on Twitter) a few supposedly “offensive” things about Jews.

Update, 20 March 2021

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9376997/Barrister-40-dealt-chemsex-pills-represented-client-banned.html

Update, 16 May 2021

Lest anyone think that the Hendron matters have been the only ones where leniency has been egregrious as compared to my own case, take a look at this report from 2019: https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/12/controversial-barrister-suspended-for-two-years-over-obscene-tweets/.

“Controversial barrister” merely “suspended” for 2 years. In my case, I tweeted general socio-political comments in 5 specified tweets. Contrary to the lying statement put out by the BSB, I did not “identify” myself in any of them, nor on my Twitter profile, as a barrister. My tweets were not “addressed” to any particular person, either. Sentence? Disbarment.

“Controversial barrister” Barbara Hewson? Merely suspended for 2 years:

“A controversial barrister has been suspended for two years for “obscene” and “abusive” language on social media” [Legal Cheek magazine]

“Her social media activity has drawn attention for many years. In 2015, Legal Cheek reported several examples of tweets sent from Hewson’s Twitter account telling people to “grow up you cunt” and “get off my tits, you cunts”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]

“[Sarah] Phillimore has said that Hewson’s past behaviour included telling her “fuck off” and calling her a “nasty C**t” and “continually making references to my daughter when she knows full well that her tweets are ‘liked’ and ‘retweeted’ by at least one convicted and unrepentant paedophile”.” [Legal Cheek magazine]

In fact, the sentence was reduced later to suspension for 1 year, because Ms. Hewson was suffering from terminal cancer, and died of it in 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Hewson]. That does not vitiate my point about the earlier leniency.

The difference between my case and hers (apart from the fact that I did not address comments to any named individual, posted only 5 tweets complained of at Tribunal, did not post anything obscene or threatening, and did not identify myself in those tweets or on my Twitter profile as a barrister)? Jews. I mentioned Jews and their behaviour etc; Ms. Hewson did not.

Any fair-minded observer would surely conclude that Ms. Hewson’s defaults (like those of Henry Hendron) were far worse than mine; indeed, I committed no default anyway, as far as I am concerned.

Pro-Jewish bias meant bias against me.

Also:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9625043/Barrister-dealt-chemsex-pills-killed-boyfriend-avoids-struck-off.html

Update, 28 August 2022

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/barrister-dealing-drugs-henry-hendron-court-nadine-dorries-b1021206.html

“A barrister who has represented Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries and Apprentice winner Stella English has been charged with encouraging a client to supply drugs.

Henry Hendron, 41, whose rostrum of well-known past clients also includes the Earl of Cardigan, is facing allegations he bought crystal meth and party drug GBL.”

Please continue to monitor this blog post for further updates…

Update, 8 October 2022

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/barrister-nadine-dorries-woolwich-crown-court-london-dagenham-b1030813.html

“A barrister accused of encouraging his client to supply drugs has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Henry Hendron, who previously represented high-profile figures including the Earl of Cardigan and Nadine Dorries, is alleged to have bought crystal meth and GBL.

The 41-year-old represented himself, and barrister Kerry Broome was prosecuting, as he appeared at Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London on Thursday.

Wearing a grey suit and striped shirt, he pleaded not guilty to all counts.“

[Evening Standard].

Update, 14 March 2023

I have no idea what was the result of Hendron’s latest trial; it may have been deferred, as many have been in the past few years.

Whatever the fact of that, I notice that Hendron still has a Bar Practice Certificate, valid until April 2023! See https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/28719507B95237D35C7E529721FB5145.html.

Update, 19 March 2023

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/top-barrister-chemsex-death-case-29495008.

As previously noted, Hendron is still being described, risibly, as a “top barrister“! I have blogged more than once about how, for tabloid scribblers, there are only two types of barrister, “top” and “disgraced” (or both?).

Update, 17 June 2023

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/13/judge-jails-barrister-who-tried-to-buy-drugs-from-two-men-he-represented

Well, there we are…

As said previously, I have no personal animus against Hendron (whom I never encountered). I just think that he has no reasonably-good ability, in that he is unable to reason clearly, cannot spell or use the English language properly, and overall should never have been at the Bar. Also, I still think that, until this week, he was treated very leniently by the Bar establishment, whereas I was treated very badly (and contrary to law), and that because the Bar and Bench always seem to run scared of the Jewish lobby these days.

Update, 1 September 2023

Note: https://news.sky.com/story/barrister-ian-millard-disbarred-for-offensive-anti-jewish-tweets-10635920

Addendum: In respect of the above:

“He was jailed for 14 months by Judge Mann after previously admitting two counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the supply of class A drugs, one similar charge involving class C drugs, and possession of a class A drug.

Mann described Hendron as “clearly bright and capable”, adding: “It is clear you are a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”

“I want to make it clear that it is not the fact that you are a barrister that is so serious.

“What is so serious is these offences have been committed by you in the context of you asking those you represent, or represented, to supply you with drugs.”

The said Judge Mann called Hendron “clearly bright and capable” and that he is or was “a well-thought-of person both professionally and personally.”

Read my above blog. Would the assessment of Hendron by Judge Mann be yours? It is not mine.

Hendron was sentenced to 14 months, so will be released, at latest, after 7 months, i.e. on or before 1 April 2024; April Fools’ Day.

Update, 17 April 2024

I happened to see the Evening Standard report below, which tells the story of how Hendron’s appeal has just now been dismissed:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/disgraced-barrister-henry-hendron-bought-drugs-from-clients-loses-appeal-bid-b1151568.html

Apparently, “The Court of Appeal noted that Hendron had not been disbarred after that conviction, noting “unusual and very serious” feature of his case.“

Ambiguous. Does that mean that Hendron’s not having been disbarred was an “unusual and very serious feature” of the case, or was he not disbarred because there was some (unspecified) “unusual and very serious feature” in the matter? The way I read the (nowadays, typically) semi-literate newspaper report, the former seems to be the case.

Anyway, there it is. On the face of it, Hendron, when released (he may already have been released) can resume, it seems, his Bar career, if he can find any clients.

Update, 20 May 2025

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/resources/press-releases/barrister-henry-hendron-ordered-to-be-disbarred.html

Well, that’s that, then (finally). I only today noticed that Hendron was disbarred last year, only months after the last update to this blog post.

elections, free speech, historical, historical revisionism, MPs, Party Politics, society, Uncategorized

They Go Like Sleepwalkers, whence Providence Dictates

5 Comments

Adolf Hitler once remarked that he went like a sleepwalker to wherever Providence or Fate dictated. A cynic might ask why, in that case, did Germany lose the Second World War. I have thought about this over the years, coming to the conclusion (decades ago now) that Germany’s bitter defeat saved not only Germany itself but all Central Europe and even all Europe from terminal disaster.

As is well-known, the atom bomb scientists working on the Manhattan Project (the British end being known as “Tube Alloys”), were almost all Jews who had fled from or anyway left Europe to live in the USA. Their motivation was to create a weapon which would obliterate National Socialist Germany. Japan was but an afterthought.

So focussed were the Jew atom bomb scientists on Germany’s destruction, that when it seemed possible in mathematical theory that detonation of the first bomb in the desert of the South Western USA would cause the world’s atmosphere to catch fire, destroying all life on Earth, those Jews decided to proceed. A sombre fact indeed.

Had Germany not been forced to surrender by complete military defeat, it would have seen its main cities destroyed by atom bombs. The air, water, soil of much of Central Europe would have been contaminated for decades, in fact for centuries. Seen like that, the bitter defeat and humiliating  surrender was a saving grace in the end.

Why do I bring up these facts? Because I want to make the point that agencies above the human level act on what might be seen as “purely” earthly concerns: war, politics etc.

Move now to the present UK political scene. Less than 2 years ago, Jeremy Corbyn, an eccentric and –his critics said– extremist radical, was persuaded to stand in the Labour Party leadership contest and agreed purely because he wanted to have his kind of politics at least represented. It was uncertain as to whether Corbyn would even be allowed to become a candidate, because to stand, a candidate required nomination by 15% (35) of Labour MPs. Corbyn did not have even that much support. In the end, he was nominated, not only by the few who supported him, but by a number of MPs who did not support him and who had no intention of voting for him. Reflect on that. A number of MPs who were anti-Corbyn still nominated him and without those nominations Corbyn would not even have been on the ballot. As it was, Corbyn only managed to scrape onto the list with 36 nominations (inc. his own), the last a few minutes before nominations closed.

Once on the ballot, Corbyn’s support mushroomed and he won easily, overwhelmingly. The same happened when there was a challenge to his leadership the following year. Events happened by which his opponents were wrongfooted. There seemed to be an aura of invincibility around Corbyn and his campaign. Indeed, in 2015, Conservatives were urged by Toby Young and others to join Labour under the £3 offer scheme and then vote for Corbyn, on the premise that a Corbyn leadership would sink Labour!

Mainstream media commentators seemed unable to fathom Corbyn’s appeal. Journalist Janan Ganesh, for example,  wrote that Corbyn’s election “spelled disaster” for Labour. I wonder if he wishes now that he had spiked that opinion!

Coming up to the 2017 General Election, the polls predicted Labour’s worst-ever disaster, with its MP bloc being reduced from 230 to as few as 150. Some predicted an even lower number. That general perception of Labour’s defeat persisted until about two weeks before Election Day, when the Prime Minister, Theresa May, suddenly destroyed both her own carefully-crafted public persona and her party’s chances. The bursting of the Conservative Party balloon was palpable. The polls immediately narrowed and by Election Day were showing the parties almost neck and neck. We should, again, reflect on this: Theresa May, for no reason, destroyed her own party’s campaign. For me, “the Hand of God” is shown here.

The eventual result of the General Election was a Labour MP bloc of 262, up from 230 and something few had seen coming. As for the Conservatives, though some loyalists said that “Labour lost”, that was and is not how it feels. The Conservatives lost 13 seats (317 won, down from 330) and their House of Commons majority. Corbyn’s stock rose and he is now said to be higher in public esteem than Theresa  May, while Labour is higher in the polls than the Conservatives.

Taking it as a fact, for the purposes of argument, that higher forces are protecting Corbyn, why would that be so? After all, he is some kind of agnostic, it seems, is not overtly religious or spiritual and does not on the surface seem to have anything to commend him to what Schwerin von Krosigk termed “the Angel of History”. All one can say to that is the admittedly-platitudinous comment that “God moves in mysterious ways”. There are a few ideas that come to mind: the Conservative Party may now be prevented from imposing a Jewish-Zionist repression on freedom of expression on the Internet, for one thing. It is also far less likely that the UK can get involved in Israel-instigated wars or attacks in other parts of the world.

It may be, also, that it is necessary that the UK has to have a weak System government, so as to gradually open the door to social nationalism and a completely different society down the line. I cannot say. All I can say is that it seems as if Corbyn does enjoy a degree of “divine protection” and it will be fascinating to see how that plays out in the coming months and years.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

General Election Day 2017

8 Comments

I write in the early morning of 8 June 2017, General Election day. Within 24 hours, most results will have been counted and announced. Some will come in later in the day on the 9th.

Against almost all expectations (including my own) the election looks as if it may be close-run. Predictions from polling organizations offer everything from a hung Parliament (no overall House of Commons majority) to a solid Conservative HoC majority. However, few if any “experts” are now predicting the 100+-majority landslide that seemed almost inevitable just a few short weeks ago. What happened?

To my mind, what happened to the “Conservative landslide” is that voters suddenly woke up to Theresa May as a brittle, nervy, unhealthy (type-1 diabetes) woman who, though clever at the Westminster version of office politics  (outmanoeuvring opponents etc), is not really a national leader. Her “strong and stable” mantra played well at first against a Labour Party frontbench that was (and still is, largely) a joke, but May’s U-turns on policy damaged her and her party badly. The impression was twofold– first, that policies which impact upon almost every family in the land had not been properly thought through; secondly, that faced with public and newspaper opposition, Theresa May was willing to trim or even abandon her policies. “Strong and stable” became “weak and vacillating”. There is a third aspect: Theresa May was seen suddenly as someone who might be ruthless in stamping on such as the pensioners whose votes are so vital to the Conservative Party.

There is that “backroom person suddenly given power” thing about Theresa May. Her career outside politics was at the banks’ cheque-clearing organization, BACS, hardly exciting or cutting-edge work. In fact, as MP and minister, Theresa May did not shine and her long tenure as Home Secretary was marked by absurd initiatives and continuing mass immigration, as well as by the sacking of 20,000 police officers. Her main focus was on careerism, becoming a minister, then plotting for years to become Prime Minister.

The people around Theresa May are not impressive and had been kept in the background by the Conservative election machine. In particular, clown prince Boris Johnson was not prominent. When he did emerge, he messed up (again).

Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, went during the campaign from looking like a mixture of crazed radical and ineffectual duffer to looking quite reasonable and, in a word, electable, at least to many. Corbyn too was surrounded by people at best mediocre: Diane Abbott (replaced a day before the election on grounds of “ill-health” after several staggeringly-bad TV and radio interviews); Dawn Butler; Angela Rayner. All deadheads.

Corbyn had been the hate-figure of the mass media, the Jew-Zionist-Israel lobby and the Conservative Party to such a great extent that he eclipsed those around him. In the end, ironically, that may have played well for Labour. The Presidential-style campaign pitted May against Corbyn and, as May’s campaign unravelled, Corbyn’s did not and Corbyn himself began to look a lot more reasonable than May to many.

Labour has promised much. It may not be able to deliver; but the Conservatives seem to offer nothing but ever-more poverty, low pay, poor prospects, more “austerity” nonsense and repression of free speech, egged on by the Jewish Lobby which is so powerful in the Conservative Party (Theresa May herself being a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, as are 80% of Conservative Party MPs).

Few, if any, expect Labour to somehow “win” the election, either by getting a House of Commons majority (practically impossible in view of Labour’s long-term shrinkage and the dominance of the SNP in Scotland) or by becoming the largest party in the HoC. However, Labour now looks as if, far from shrinking its MP numbers from 229 to 200 or even 150 as many (including me) had thought likely, it might retain a Commons bloc (cadre?) not very much reduced from where it was after 2015. A small increase is also not now impossible.

The small Conservative majority in the House of Commons (6, but in practice more because of the non-voting of the Speaker, Sinn Fein MPs, suspended MPs etc) might as easily decrease as increase. A hung Parliament would leave the Conservatives as the largest party, almost certainly, but unable to rule except as a minority government, outvoted easily by hostile parties, notably Labour and SNP.

Could Labour form a minority government? The convention is that the largest party in the Commons has first chance to cobble together sufficient Commons support. As Bagehot put it, a government is formed when a party has “the confidence” of a majority in the Commons. If the Conservatives as largest party could not agree something with the SNP, then Labour might try, with a greater prospect of success. Labour social policies are closer to those of the SNP. The same is true in the foreign policy arena.

If the Conservatives achieve a majority greater than that presently enjoyed, then the above will be –in the American sense– moot and irrelevant. If, however, the Conservatives have no majority, then it is quite likely that Labour, even if not the largest party, will be able to form a minority government.

The only fly in that ointment is that the SNP has fewer than 60 seats in the HoC. It may well have only 40 or 45 after the election. If Labour ends up with, even, 250 (20 more than where Labour was before the election was called), that will still be far fewer than 300 even with SNP support, 326 being the necessary number. That would necessitate support from LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Northern Irish MPs etc. Difficult.

One thing is for sure: if the Conservatives lose seats, then Theresa May will have to resign. Corbyn is in a better position. His power comes from the members, who still seem to support him strongly. Moreover, the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs (many of whom are pro-Israel mouthpieces) lose either way. If Labour does reasonably well or not too badly in the election, Corbyn’s position will be upheld. On the other hand, if Labour is badly defeated in the election, the most aggressively anti-Corbyn MPs will lose their seats. They are toast either way.

Looking beyond the election, there will be a space for a new social-national movement down the line. The System parties are increasingly less capable of sorting out Britain’s problems.

Update, 5 December 2018

Looking again at what I wrote 18 months ago, the only glaring error was in assuming that Theresa May would resign if the Conservatives lost seats. They lost seats, they lost their Commons majority, but Theresa May stuck.

I underestimated the limpet quality of a backroom careerist type who had plotted for many long years to become Conservative leader and Prime Minister. She may be hopeless as a Prime Minister, but, by Jingo, she’s there and nothing short of a grenade under her bony **** is going to remove her! I suppose that she might try to hang on even after her (vulgar term) “deal” on Brexit sinks this week or next. That would have to trigger either a no-confidence vote in the Commons or the equivalent in the Conservative Party.

Party Politics, Uncategorized

General Election 2017: Stoke-on-Trent North

16 Comments

Background

Stoke-on-Trent North constituency was established in 1950, since which time it has been a safe Labour (or Labour Co-op) seat. Only since 2015 has its status been considered to have become marginal.

For the first 29 years of the existence of the constituency, the Labour vote did not dip below 60% and was often above 70%, peaking at 75.49% at the 1953 by-election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections.

Only in 1970 did Labour fail to secure over 60% of the vote, coming in with 59.36%. That was also the first election at which 4 candidates stood. In fact, only occasionally before the 1980s were there more than 2 candidates: in October 1974, Lab, Con, Liberal; in 1979 the Labour, Conservative and Liberal candidates were joined by one from the National Front (the NF lost their deposit, securing less than 1% of the vote).

In the 1980s, there were commonly 3 parties in contention, but from 1992 others joined the fray. There were 7 candidates in 2005, 5 in 2010 and 7 in 2015.

Joan Walley, the MP for 28 years (1987-2015) had vote shares above 50% and even 60%, peaking at 65.2% in 1997. Her final election, however, in 2010, was achieved on a lower level: 44.3%.

The MP from 2015-2017, Ruth Smeeth, was elected on a vote share of only 39.9%, the lowest Labour vote share ever in Stoke-on-Trent North. There may have been a number of causative factors: long-term decline in the Labour vote; also, the number of candidates contending (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green Party, UKIP and 2 Independents). The Labour candidate herself may have been another factor in the lacklustre Labour performance.

Ruth Smeeth

Ruth Smeeth is not from the West Midlands. Her origins (as far as the UK is concerned) lie in Edinburgh and London. Her Jewish mother came from a background in East London where her immediate family members in the 1930s were engaged in crime and gangsterism: the era of razor gangs and the like. They were violently opposed to the English people who supported Oswald Mosley, and were engaged in streetfighting or worse.

Ruth Smeeth has described herself as “culturally Jewish” and worked for years for the “Britain Israel Communications Centre” [BICOM], a public relations or propaganda outfit working on behalf of Israel and Zionism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_Israel_Communications_and_Research_Centre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Smeeth#Early_life

In 2009, Bradley Manning, the American whistleblower, made available to Wikileaks a cable in which the American Embassy described Ruth Smeeth as “a source” whom the Embassy staff should “strictly protect”. It is largely a question of definition whether such a person is called “a confidential contact”, “an agent of influence”, more simply “an agent” or (brutally? unfairly?) “a spy”. The diplomatic cable simply used the words “a source”.

Despite the above, the Labour Party machine was determined to get Ruth Smeeth adopted as the candidate for Stoke-on-Trent North and she was, after an all-women shortlist was imposed on the selection procedure. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), her activity for the American and Israeli governments seems not to have barred her from becoming the candidate.

As an MP, Ruth Smeeth has taken part in some minor campaigns (see the Wikipedia article, above), but has also spent much time attacking the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn; she has been vocal (on occasion, near-hysterical) about alleged “anti-Semitism” in the Labour Party and generally.

Analysis

Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green Party are all putting up candidates. The obvious absentee is UKIP. In 2015, Labour’s vote was 39.9%, Conservative vote 27.4%, UKIP 24.7%, the LibDems 2.9% (down from 17.7% in 2010 and 14.8% in 2005); Green Party secured a vote share of 2.8%.

The constituency voted about 60%-40% for Leave in the EU Referendum.

It would be too easy to add together the 2015 vote shares of the Conservatives and UKIP (combined, 52.1%) and assume that UKIP votes will be transferred to the Conservatives. The chances are that a high proportion will either not vote or will go elsewhere than to the Conservatives. However, we can probably guess that half of 2010 UKIP votes will be gathered in by the Conservative candidate (particularly bearing in mind Brexit etc), making a possible Conservative vote share of perhaps about 40%, possibly several points higher. Then there is the (open) question of how many 2010 Labour voters will go Conservative.

Labour is unlikely to do as well this time as it did in 2015 after five years of Conservative-led coalition government. Any persons who support Labour generally but are anti-Israel (or anti-Zionist or, indeed, “anti-Semitic”) will not vote for Ruth Smeeth and will probably either vote Green or even LibDem, or just stay home, “voting with their feet”. Likewise, any Labour members who are strongly pro-Corbyn may well decide that what they have to do is abstain or vote elsewhere, simply in order to get rid of Ruth Smeeth and then get a more suitable Labour candidate for next time.

Realistically, only Labour and Conservative have a real chance. That means that the LibDem and Green votes, even if as small as they were in 2015 (under 3% each) are of importance.

Prediction

Both Labour and Conservative candidates are likely to be in the 35%-50% range, with the Liberal Democrats and Green Party contending for the remaining 10% or 15% of votes.

I assess the likely outcome as follows: Conservative Party to win Stoke-on-Trent North for the first time over Labour, with the Greens (possibly) third and LibDems (perhaps) bringing up the rear.

Press Coverage

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/general-election-2017-stoke-north-13066893

Bookmakers’ Odds

At time of writing, the Conservative Party is odds-on to win:

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/stoke-on-trent-north/winning-party

Update, 2 March 2019

Well, I was wrong in my tentative tipping of the Conservative Party to win Stoke on Trent North for the first time ever. The Labour candidate, the Jewish Zionist, Ruth Smeeth, won the seat with 50.9% of votes cast, Labour’s best result here since 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_of_the_2010s

Under Britain’s FPTP voting system, there are no prizes for coming second, but the Conservative candidate in 2017 (same person as in 2015) achieved 45.3%, which was the best result the Conservatives had ever had in Stoke on Trent North (2015 had been 27.4%, 2010 was 23.8%, and 2005 only 20%).

Labour’s majority in 2017 was by far the smallest in the seat since it was formed, both in percentage and in absolute terms.

In retrospect, it is clear that Ruth Smeeth benefited from the Corbyn effect, ironically, despite the fact that she has been one of those most involved in Israeli-Zionist attempts to unseat him as Labour Leader. Life is rarely “fair”…

There is also the point that, arguably, speculatively, most Stoke on Trent voters were and probably still are unaware of Ruth Smeeth’s criminal family background and/or her links with secretive Israeli and other Jewish organizations (not to mention her links with the American Embassy in London).

Update, 28 May 2020

Ruth Smeeth is no longer an MP (yay!), having been unseated at the 2019 General Election by the Conservative Party candidate, Jonathan Gullis, a not-very-interesting “free market” former schoolteacher aged (now) 30.

The Conservative Party candidate got 20,974 votes (52.3%) to Ruth Smeeth’s 14,688 (36.6%). A convincing win.

The reasons for Ruth Smeeth’s defeat were probably:

  • the general move away from Labour, nationally;
  • more knowledge in the electorate in 2019 than had been the case in 2015 and 2017 about Ruth Smeeth’s secret links with American and Israeli intelligence (also about her criminal family background);
  • perhaps the realization that Ruth Smeeth is not a very nice person anyway.

Of the above, the most important was probably the national move away from Labour, and the hostility to Jeremy Corbyn. Ironically, Ruth Smeeth had herself played a major part in the Jew-Zionist attack on Corbyn and Labour since 2015. Her treachery was suitably rewarded by her being dumped by the electors of Stoke-on-Trent North.

Alt-Right, Brexit, elections, ethnostate, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

The Self-described “Left”, “Liberals” and “Democratic Socialists”: The Fall of the Pretensions

14 Comments

Those who follow me on Twitter, WordPress etc will know that I never use the now-outdated terms “Right”, “Left”, “far-Right” etc. Politics is more nuanced now. There are not two monolithic ideological blocs facing each other. However, others do still use such terms, for what they are worth. Those who self-describe as “left”, as well as some “liberals” and “socialists”, have been celebrating the rigged election (rigged via propaganda and hullabaloo) of a French presidential election candidate, Macron, who should be their worst nightmare.

In Macron, we see someone who believes in the virtually untrammelled movement of money across the world. He describes French culture as non-existent, he wants to destroy most of the rights of French citizens in respect of employment, State benefits and in respect of their culture. You would think that such a person would be anathema to the so-called “left”, yet most of the latter in France supported and voted for him rather than voting for Marine le Pen, not even abstaining. Their counterparts in England applaud Macron, because he opposed Marine le Pen.

As in other political matters, the role of the Jewish Zionist element is key.

In the UK, the upcoming General Election is likely to be a “landslide by default”, with the misnamed “Conservatives” sweeping all before them as their main rivals (UKIP, Labour) implode (the LibDems being unlikely to figure except as peripheral players). Again, the self-described “left” has nothing effective to say. Its supporters prefer to laugh at the demise of UKIP (and in general the failure of non-Conservative nationalist parties) rather than offer the British people anything by way of effective opposition to the Conservative regime under Theresa May.

The Labour Party is now widely expected to achieve no more than 150 or so seats, a prediction I made a year ago. Some predict as few as 125. Labour is declining from what it was until 2010, with a self-view and image as a national or UK-wide party, to that of an English and Welsh party focussed around and supported by, mainly, some ethnic minorities and public sector workers.

The self-described “left” favours many things which most British people do not: mass immigration, open borders, globalized movement of people, of money, of employment. These are also favoured by the Conservative Party and the LibDems.

The people have been left out. They are the victims not only of the rootless cosmopolitan finance-capitalists but of those who have claimed until now to speak for the people: the “left”/”socialist”/”liberal” political parties and the trade unions tied in with the “socialist” or “social democratic” political parties. The whole journalistic milieu, pretty much, can be added to the mix, as can a good deal of the “media” world generally, including entertainers etc.

The “Left”, “liberals”, non-national “socialists” etc are now not speaking for the people of Britain (or any part of Europe). Their pretensions are exploded. They can only applaud the anointing of a completely-manufactured fake and puppet, such as Macron, just as they applaud the finance-capitalist EU (and imagine that it will somehow protect “rights”, despite “holocaust” “denial” laws, arbitrary cross-border arrest etc), just as they applaud mass immigration and just as they want open borders so that the detritus of the failing post-1945 international order can flood across Europe, destroying everything in its path.

The fall of the pretensions means that, soon enough, nothing will stand in the way of pan-European (but anti-EU) social nationalism. It will speak for the people and it will be heard.

Update, 20 July 2019

I was right about the direction of travel, though wrong about Labour’s likely performance at the 2017 General Election.

Update, 5 July 2021

The 2019 General Election confirmed the essential accuracy of my analysis. Labour has lost most of the English people; it even seems to have lost some of the Muslims, now that it is under Jewish-lobby control again.

As for Macron, he is very much on the back foot with the French people.

Proposals for a new society…